- Wombat Security Technologies v. Phishme, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 20, 2017 · PGR2017-00009 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Wombat’s rehearing request, leaving institution of PGR denied because the petition did not show the patent was eligible for PGR.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“DISCUSSION The applicable standard for granting a request for rehearing is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The requirements of a request for rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“sufficiently shown that the ’038 patent was eligible for post-grant review. Inst. Dec. 8–13. Specifically, we found deficient Petitioner’s contention that the challenged claims were not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of Application No. 13/785,252 (“the ’252 application”) to which the ’038 patent claims priority as a continuation-in-part. Inst. Dec. 8–13. This finding was based on the following deficiencies of the Petition: (1) the Petition did not discuss the relevant disclosure of the application to which the ’038 patent claims priority—Application No. 13/785,282 (“the ’252 application”)—as originally filed, citing instead to the ’940 patent, which issued from the ’252 application; (2) the Petition did not address the Examiner’s statements in the Notice of Allowability that “[t]he present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions”; and (3) Petitioner did not satisfy its burden to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the inventor to have possession of “providing feedback to the individual confirming that the identified email was a simulated phishing attack” (“the feedback limitation”). Id. For the third deficiency, we found the feedback limitation supported by at least paragraphs 5 and 18 of the ’252 application, which discuss training individuals who receive simulated phishing attacks such that users are better able to recognize and thwart a real phishing attack. Id. at 11–12.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached
“being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,398,038 - L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · PGR2017-00011 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 112.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Moreover, “[a]pplicants can define . . . claim scope during prosecution,” just as they can in a patent specification. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, during prosecution of the ’419 patent, the applicant stated that “[t]he term ‘hair coloring agent’ refers to a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” Ex. 1005, 7. To define specific terms used to describe an invention, the applicant need only set out the definition “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). On the present record, the definition of the term “hair coloring agent” set out in the prosecution history of the ’419 patent is sufficiently clear, deliberate, and precise to give a person of ordinary skill in the art notice that the term is used in the ’419 patent in a manner that does not include substances other than “colorant[s] or pigment[s] that [are] customarily used in hair care products,” even if those other substances might be described as “hair coloring agents” outside the context of the ’419 patent. Ex. 1005, 7. Accordingly, we should give effect to that definition. Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” gives effect to the prosecution history’s definition of “hair coloring agent,” we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for purposes of the present decision. Thus, on the present record, and for purposes of the present decision, we construe “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.”” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable
“to determine the scope of the claims. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable
“wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent.” Pet. 36–39; Prelim. Resp. 39–40. If “a hair coloring agent” encompasses bleaching agents, then the claims all require a bleaching formulation and simultaneously exclude a bleaching agent, a scope that Petitioner argues is not described in the specification of the ’419 patent. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent lack written description support. slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,498,419 - American Megatrends, Inc. / Micro-Star International Co., Ltd et al. v. Kinglite Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01079 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–45 are unpatentable: claims 1–40 and 44 as obvious over either PC Tools and Gerace or LogoMania, and claims 41–43 and 45 as obvious over either specified combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
- ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteDecided for petitioner
“We first note that proposed claim 46 recites a “profile,” a term that is broader than a “user profile” and is not specifically defined. In addition, the meaning of the language in proposed claim 46 “wherein the computer system [that displays the image] characterizes the profile under the operating system environment” is unclear. Although the operating system may be a Windows OS, as Patent Owner argues, Patent Owner does not cite to a description concerning what it means for the computer system, i.e., the system that displays the image, to “characterize[s] the profile” or what steps the computer takes to characterize the profile. Id. at 8–9. Instead, Patent Owner argues that a service center provides additional content based on the user system and profile. Id. at 9. That language, however, is not recited in proposed claim 46. We deny the Motion to Amend on this basis as well.” slip op. at 24
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“It was not Petitioner’s responsibility to monitor whether Patent Owner moved for Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission. However, we also are troubled by Petitioner’s failure to seek a conference with the Board at the time of the deposition. Although Petitioner argues it could not have moved to quash the deposition because the notice was signed by lead counsel, Christopher Frerking (Reply to Opp. To Mot to Exclude 4), it appears that Petitioner’s counsel was aware that Mr. Summerfield would conduct the cross examination at least several days, and possibly several weeks, before the deposition took place. Hr’g Tr. 47, 49. Petitioner does not allege any prejudice as a result of Mr. Summerfield conducting the cross examination or argue that Mr. Summerfield behaved improperly during the deposition. Mot. To Exclude 4. Instead, Petitioner contends we should exclude the evidence as a matter of policy to demonstrate that our rules concerning pro hac vice admission must be taken seriously and to discourage others from acting in a similar manner, particularly in the case of deposition testimony and arguments that become part of the trial record. Id. at 4–6.8 Petitioner contends that allowing the deposition to take place did not cure its objection to the deposition. Reply to Opp. To Mot. To Exclude. 1–2. Dr. Kaliski’s deposition took place on January 8, 2016. Petitioner could have opposed Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission until January 16, 2016. However, notwithstanding Mr. Summerfield’s conduct, to which Petitioner objected, Petitioner did not oppose Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission. Had Petitioner opposed Mr. Summerfield’s admission on the basis that he conducted the deposition without proper authorization, the issue could have been addressed earlier in the proceeding and another deposition scheduled, if it was determined that Mr. Summerfield would not be admitted and the deposition transcript would not be entered. Instead, Petitioner elected to delay the matter until the last possible date for filing a Motion to Exclude. Thus, even if Petitioner’s objection was not cured when Petitioner permitted the deposition to proceed without contacting the Board, Petitioner’s subsequent failure to oppose Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission pro hac vice implies at least some degree of consent. The parties conduct in this case does not warrant excluding Dr. Kaliski’s deposition transcript from evidence. We do not condone Patent Owner’s unreasonable delay in seeking pro hac vice admission of Mr. Summerfield, and under other circumstances our ruling might be different. However, in this case, the absence of prejudice and Petitioner’s failure to” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 6,373,498 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,373,498 - Google Inc. v. Better Food Choices LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 18, 2016 · CBM2015-00071 · APJ Minn Chung · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–10 are also indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2 because the specification lacks an algorithm for the claimed correlating function.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenOther
“As an initial matter, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has not met its burden of proof because Petitioner relies only on the ’115 patent and its prosecution history to argue unpatentability and does not present any other evidence, such as a witness. PO Resp. 6–7, 13–20. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has presented no evidence of unpatentability because the ’115 patent and its file history “shows the Patent Owner has a valid, issued patent and nothing more.” Id. at 7. We are not persuaded because, as discussed below, in this case we need to look only to the ’115 patent and its prosecution history to support a finding of unpatentability under §§ 101 and 112. See In re TLI Comm. LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613–14 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the patent alone is sufficient to sustain a finding of unpatentability under § 101).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“rebuttable presumption that the limitation is written in a means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). If, in addition to the word “means” and the functional language, the claim recites sufficient structure for performing the described functions in their entirety, the presumption is overcome, and § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. Id. “Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the functions in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure.” Id. at 1259–60.” slip op. at 28
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“with the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedents on step one analysis under the Alice framework. In step one of the Alice analysis, to determine whether the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry is to ask, considered in light of the Specification, whether “their character as a whole” is directed to an abstract idea, not, as Patent Owner contends, identifying the “core invention” of the patent. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Relying on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas,” the court in Enfish clarified that a relevant inquiry in step one of the Alice framework is to ask whether the “focus” of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358–59). In this inquiry, claims “directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer” are contrasted with claims “simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices” or “generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity.” See TLI, 823 F.3d at 612 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338). The Federal Circuit further clarified recently and described the first-stage inquiry as “looking at the ‘focus’ of the claims, their ‘character as a whole.’” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., No. 2015-” slip op. at 17
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of collecting and correlating information to provide personalized nutritional information of food products to shoppers into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. TLI, 823 F.3d at 613. Rather, the recited components must involve more than performance of “‘well- understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 5,841,115 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · NautilusPatents in suitUS 5,841,115 - Headbox, LLC v. Infinite Imagineering, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 22, 2015 · IPR2014-00365 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 8–14, 16–19, 22, and 24–26 are unpatentable under § 103; claim 23 is indefinite under § 112, and its obviousness was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“headphone set in accordance with claim 1, where each of said speaker headphones includes a pair of stereo headphone driver units in order to increase the volume/audio level when said speaker headphones are not positioned on the user’s head.” Ex. 1001, 12:5–9 (emphasis added). Claim 23 additionally recites “wherein each of said headphone driver units includes a volume controlling means for regulating and presetting the volume level for said exterior speakers and said interior speakers.” Id. at 12:23–26 (emphasis added). Petitioner contends, and we agree, that “volume controlling means” is a means-plus-function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, and that the claimed function is regulating and presetting the volume level for the exterior speakers and the interior speakers. Pet. 11. Petitioner also contends that the Specification does not identify any structure that corresponds to this function. Id. “If the specification does not contain an adequate disclosure of the structure that corresponds to the claimed function, the patentee will have failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112, which renders the claim invalid for indefiniteness.” Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Specification teaches that one embodiment of headphone set 10 includes driver unit 70 for interior speakers 42, 44, and driver unit 72 for exterior speakers 38, 40, with driver units 70, 72 including “volume controlling means” 71 and 73, respectively. Ex. 1001, 6:40–45, Fig. 2B.7 According to the Specification, the volume controlling means are for presetting a maximum volume to each of the interior and exterior speakers, presumably to prevent hearing damage caused by excessively loud audio. Id. at 6:57–7:2. But the Specification does not describe or depict the structure that the volume controlling means uses to preset the maximum volume. Instead, it merely describes their function and depicts each of them as a box in a block diagram. Id. This is not sufficient because it does not “cabin the scope of the functional language in the means[-plus-function] element.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 518–19 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that a “black box” in a flow chart only represents a function without specifying structure). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’966 patent Specification does not describe structure corresponding to the function of presetting a maximum volume to the interior and exterior speakers, rendering claim 23 indefinite.” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteOther
“which renders the claim invalid for indefiniteness.” Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Specification teaches that one embodiment of headphone set 10 includes driver unit 70 for interior speakers 42, 44, and driver unit 72 for exterior speakers 38, 40, with driver units 70, 72 including “volume controlling means” 71 and 73, respectively. Ex. 1001, 6:40–45, Fig. 2B.7 According to the Specification, the volume controlling means are for presetting a maximum volume to each of the interior and exterior speakers, presumably to prevent hearing damage caused by excessively loud audio. Id. at 6:57–7:2. But the Specification does not describe or depict the structure that the volume controlling means uses to preset the maximum volume. Instead, it merely describes their function and depicts each of them as a box in a block diagram. Id. This is not sufficient because it does not “cabin the scope of the functional language in the means[-plus-function] element.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 518–19 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that a “black box” in a flow chart only represents a function without specifying structure). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’966 patent Specification does not describe structure corresponding to the function of presetting a maximum volume to the interior and exterior speakers, rendering claim 23 indefinite.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“speaker headphone (ear covers 20) on opposing ends of a headband—each speaker headphone comprising an exterior speaker (audio speaker 25) and an interior speaker (earphone speaker 27)—and a signal wire connecting an audio device output to the speaker headphones. Ex. 1003, 2:8–20, 23–44, 53–59, 3:24–32, Figs. 1, 2. Kuo also discloses a switch that allows a user to listen to either the interior speakers or exterior speakers, although it does not describe the claimed three-way switch that also allows a user to 8 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied may be considered admitted.”). simultaneously listen to both interior and exterior speakers. Id. at 2:32–44, 3:27–29. We find, however, that Awaba discloses a three-way switch (mode switch 28) that permits a user to select between the three claimed listening modes. Ex. 1004, 2:5–12, 27–28, 4:30–36, Fig. 1. Further, a skilled artisan9 would have considered Awaba’s three-way switch to be an obvious substitute for Kuo’s two-way switch because both are used for essentially the same purpose: to select between a headphone’s internal and external speakers on similar speaker-equipped headphones. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the substitution because Awaba’s threeway switch adds the additional functionality of being able to play both sets of speakers at the same time.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentable
“claim 1. We find that the combination of Kuo and Awaba teaches the additional limitations recited in these claims. Specifically, Kuo discloses the input jack, amplifier member, power source, headphone shape and audio-device connection of, respectively, claims 8–10, 12, and 16. Ex. 1003, 2:21– 31, 37–39, 47–59, 3:4–32, Figs. 1, 2, 5–7. Kuo’s mounting of ear covers 20 at the joint ends 11 of headband 10 corresponds to the requirements of claim 5. Id. at 2:12–18, Fig. 2. Further, Awaba discloses the three-way switch of claims 2 and 11 and the electrical connections of claim 11 (Ex. 1004, 2:24– 28, 4:25–36, Fig. 1); Awaba’s transmission of mono signals corresponds to 9 We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art). the monaural system of claim 24 (id. at 4:26–29); and Awaba’s socket 24 corresponds to claim 26’s pocket (id. at 4:10–17). Adding these features to Kuo’s headphones would have constituted use of known techniques to improve similar devices (speaker-equipped headphones) in the same way. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (holding that “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”).” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 8,085,966 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,085,966
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.